Codex Desktop Stop/checkpoint can lose original thread closeout bubble after continuation
Open 💬 2 comments Opened Apr 10, 2026 by GongYuanCaiJi
💡 Likely answer: A maintainer (github-actions[bot], contributor)
responded on this thread — see the highlighted reply below.
Upstream Bug Report - Codex Desktop Stop/Checkpoint UI Loss
Summary
Pressing Stop can preserve the continuation checkpoint but remove the last visible assistant closeout bubble from the original thread.
Steps to Reproduce
- Start a long-running Codex Desktop task in a thread.
- While the assistant is still responding or wrapping up, press Stop.
- Let Codex create the continuation/checkpoint thread.
- Reopen the original thread.
- The continuation thread proves the Stop event happened, but the original thread no longer shows the last visible assistant closeout bubble.
Environment
- macOS
- Codex Desktop 26.406.31014 (1395)
- app bundle path:
/Applications/Codex.app
Expected
- The original thread keeps the last visible assistant closeout bubble and the turn closes cleanly.
Actual
- The continuation thread contains an auto-checkpoint for the same session, but reopening the original thread no longer shows the assistant closeout bubble the operator saw before switching away.
Additional Context
- This report is based on one historical source thread with operator-corroborated visible content loss after Stop/continuation.
- A broader local stop-capture dataset shows that raw
open-turn-after-stopevents are common in proof/probe interruptions and should not be read as bug frequency by themselves. - The continuation checkpoint survived; the missing piece is the original thread's visible closeout bubble.
2 Comments
Potential duplicates detected. Please review them and close your issue if it is a duplicate.
Powered by Codex Action
Checked the three duplicates flagged by the bot.
I think this issue is related to the same persistence/history family, but it is still distinct enough to keep open:
This issue is narrower:
If maintainers prefer to consolidate this into an existing user-facing history-loss issue, I am happy to move the evidence there.